Front Page  »  

In-N-Out settles lawsuit over rural Arroyo Grande fire

November 25, 2019

By CCT STAFF

In-N-Out has settled a law suit filed by Cal Fire over a 2017 fire that started on a rural Arroyo Grande property owned by the restaurant chain.

In the lawsuit, Cal Fire accused In-N-Out of neglect regarding the start and spread of the fire. The suit sought $1.2 million, the cost of fighting the fire.

The parties have agreed not to disclose the terms of the settlement.

Over four days, the fire burned about 245 acres.


Loading...
Related:


8 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Thank you In-N-Out burger for taking responsibility. May you be an example to P.G.&E. and their lack of accountability and responsibility.


3

Glad Cal Fire has the smarts to oust Large Companies wrong doing, apparently; In and Out has morals and ethics given their religious affiliations; doubt it, or bad lawyers. Let’s hope the greater. Also, why spend cash on industrial food from Lord knows where when you can cook and make better food with local ingredients. J and R meats? Buying meat at the Fair, farmers market? Drive threws?, what is this?, the 1950s, heck no??? I prefer the 1800s where flavor and quality counts, I’d prefer old school Vs Boomer Nuclear Hipster crap, you think I have a lawn, no, I use my land for food and ecology, not “glamour”. This is not a typical mom and pop chain, and its traffic congestion in atascadero is rediculous. And the food is “decent” for its cost, due to?? It’s lack of “decent” ingredients? It’s like McDonald’s with lipstick. If you’re too lazy to support my points, you’re taking up our air. And take your cardboard food to some McDonald’s Babylon where tomatoes paste is in a little single served plastic pouch by the river where Ronald McDonald’s castle ball pit palace with the Hamburgler princess TV dinner insanity and valley smog.


-48

Preach oldtimer, preach!


-7

Wow! This is so poorly written I can barely tell what you are trying to say. The first sentence has one malaprop, two complete sentences and a sentence fragment all connected with inappropriate semicolons. At one point I thought it was an advertisement for a meat market. I must conclude that if oldtimer is “too lazy to” learn to express himself even half-way decently, he may be the one “taking up air”.

In conclusion, I also take exception to what I think was oldtimer’s point. I think it is a slippery slope to allow CalFire to charge corporations for fire suppression when fire suppression is financed by taxes. If they are successful, they will soon move on to charging individual homeowners and business owners.


19

Why is it a slippery slope? Or how is it a slippery slope? How can you slip up, or down, when all you’re trying to do is recoup tax payer dollars due to corporate negligence? How? They spent your tax dollars on suppressing a fire due to negligence so why wouldn’t you want those dollars recouped? I just don’t get it…

One other thing; yes, if negligence is proven in a fire you started and it spread to your neighbor’s home or public property and CalFire, or any other agency, responded and your tax dollars are spent in the suppression of said fire you can and mostly likely will be charged for it. And, if criminal negligence is in question you can be charged criminally, unless of course you’re a large corporation.


-8

Negligence? What negligence? There can be “fault” without negligence. Accidents happen.


I wonder if “America The Free” would take the same position if Cal Fire were coming at him for $1.2M. Or, is this just for corporations? Just curious.


13

Knowingly using a combustion driven machine that had residue built-up on its deck on a low humidity, hot and windy day in fire season, that eventually combusted and then blew off starting the fire on someone else’s property is classic fault based negligence. It fits all the elements of negligence; 1) Legal Duty of Care, 2) Breach of Duty, 3) Causation and 4) Damages.

I would hope CalFire wouldn’t come after me, but if I was at fault because of my negligence then I could expect them to and would pay the piper.

And yes it is because they are a corporation, one that I highly respect because of the way they do business and even respect more now that they’ve decided not to spend even more tax payers dollars in a fruitless defense of their reckless and negligent actions.


-3

ot,

I liked In and Out before ecoli OH 157 makes all “blended” burgers overcooked.

Pre 1990’s yiu could get an In and Out cooked rare.


In and Out cooks meat that has never been frozen. Wendy’s used to and not sure if they still do.


If you have a Fuddruckers near you and want a rare burger they will do it, as their beef is ground from never frozen whole cuts that are not exposed to the “bug” from the blending process.


The imported frozen lean cuts from New Zealand, Australia, Brazil and a few other countries do not contain “OH 157” because corn is never fed to the live animals. Facts matter, but who really cares these days. (I do)


-3